Indian Navy News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

[Karan M]

Well there was plan (project) for our own MPA based possibly on the on the C295, not sure what happened to it.

Its a declared program under DRDO to develop a mission suite for a MPA, but the CG is mentioned as the primary customer.

[Singha]

China is trying to buy a naval base in vanuatu which is near aus/nz core area.

this would help them establish a deep sea footprint and bypass the shallows of the SCS and its island chains. open up another front against the americans and complicate their logistical support network in australia.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Vanua ... 166.959158

[Khalsa]

NZ and AU exposed the intent while it was still on the chopping board in the kitchen.
Old British and French pressure was also applied and minds were changed.

All sides later denied that the Chinese has any intentions to get a base.

Would have a been a game changer for Australian and Chinese Navies.

[dinesha]

In Contra to this article

Glug, glug, glug: India’s interest in unsinkable aircraft carriers
David Brewster suggests that India should develop the Andaman and Nicobar Islands over a 3rd aircraft carrier.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-inter ... t-carriers

The “unsinkable” island is no substitute
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-inter ... substitute

The real odds that a maritime power will sink another’s aircraft carrier in peacetime are actually quite slim. True, the flat-top is expensive, and perhaps more vulnerable than before. But so long as it is employed judiciously in less-than-war conditions (as is likely to be the case), there is still no platform to beat its strategic utility.

For the Indian Navy, the aircraft carrier is an article of faith because of its ability to alter the psychological balance in the Indian Ocean littorals. It is a potent symbol of a nation’s pride and power; a floating piece of sovereign territory; and a projection of national will.

[jaysimha]

Maritime / Air Systems & technologies Kumbh Mela
28-30 November 2018.
New Delhi
https://mastconfex.com/indoasia2018/
For Indian companies
Mehul Tyagi *
Tel: +91-11-2376 5081 * M: +91-9999829252 *
Email: mehul.tyagi@ficci.com

Shubhankar Barbalia *
Tel: +91-11-2348 7533 * M: +91-9718989654
Email: shubhankar.barbalia@ficci.com
https://mastconfex.com/brands/mast/library/MAST_IndoAsia_2018_Floorplan.pdf

[chetak]

NZ and AU exposed the intent while it was still on the chopping board in the kitchen.
Old British and French pressure was also applied and minds were changed.

All sides later denied that the Chinese has any intentions to get a base.

Would have a been a game changer for Australian and Chinese Navies.

Look at the recent happenings in the light of this event. Its been a long time coming and the ripples will last for a long time after.

It is a severe blow to the hans.

It is almost like our own FCRA in character.

I have always maintained that it is best to be wary of australia and NZ. They are not straight shooters as far as India is concerned. Bleddy colonial hangovers.

Australia to pass foreign interference laws amid rising China tensions

Australia to pass foreign interference laws amid rising China tensions

Reuters Staff

* Australia seeks to prevent foreign meddling

* Lobbyists required to register as foreign agents

* New legislation has soured Australia-China ties

* China’s Huawei says security concerns “just plain wrong” (Updates to show legislation now expected to pass on Thursday)

By Colin Packham and Tom Westbrook

SYDNEY, June 27 (Reuters) - Australia is expected to pass legislation on Thursday aimed at preventing interference by foreign governments, a move likely to further stoke tensions with major trading partner China.

Mirroring similar rules in the United States, Australia will require lobbyists for foreign countries to register, and makes them liable for criminal prosecution if they are deemed to be meddling in domestic affairs.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last year referred to “disturbing reports about Chinese influence” as justification for the measures.

China has denied allegations of meddling in Australian affairs, but concern over Chinese political donations and relationships between lawmakers and Chinese businesses has intensified in Australia.

“It will come down to whether China is cited when the legislation passes. China will not want to again be singled out,” said James Laurenceson, deputy director of the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney.

The legislative package before the Senate includes the new Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill, which requires the registration of lobbyists working for foreign governments.

Another amended law expands potential crimes to include meddling by these agents.

Having cleared the lower house, the package is expected to pass in the Senate where the main opposition Labor Party has said it will support it. The Senate had been expected to give its approval on Wednesday, but time was taken over other items, and the legislation was held over until Thursday.

Another planned bill, banning foreign political donations, has yet to be introduced in the lower house.

Speaking in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said law-making was a country’s internal affair and he declined to comment, though he did appeal for all countries to “abandon Cold War thinking”.

“We further want all other countries in the world to follow the principle of not interfering in other countries’ internal affairs,” Lu told a daily news briefing.

“So we hope that all countries can abandon Cold War thinking and on a foundation of mutual respect and equal treatment pursue better communications and cooperation. We believe this better fits with the interests of all countries’ peoples.”

The widening diplomatic rift between Australia and China has affected some of their $125 billion in two-way trade as Australian wine exporters such as Treasury Wine Estates faced delays getting some products through Chinese customs.

Despite Australian efforts to ease the curbs, wine is only trickling into the industry’s most lucrative market, expected to be worth more than A$1 billion this year.

Australian cattle graziers and citrus growers also fear they are being sidelined by China as a result of the row.

HUAWEI HANG UP

Against this backdrop of cooling relations, Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei Technologies Co Ltd has emerged as a lightning rod for Australian security fears.

The world’s largest maker of telecommunications network equipment and the No. 3 smartphone supplier, Huawei has already been virtually shut out of the giant U.S. market because of national security concerns.

It is lobbying to avoid a similar fate in Australia, sponsoring more overseas travel for politicians than any other company in recent years, and arranging for John Lord, chairman of its Australian unit, to speak in Canberra on Wednesday.

Lord, a former rear admiral in Australia’s navy, said security concerns based on Huawei’s links to China were “uninformed or just plain wrong”.

“In our three decades as a company no evidence of any sort has been provided to justify these concerns by anyone ever,” Lord told the National Press Club of Australia, adding that Britain and New Zealand had permitted 5G investments by Huawei.

“Nothing sinister has been found. No wrongdoing, no criminal action, no intent, no back door, no planted vulnerability and no magical kill switch,” he said.

Huawei provides 4G equipment to three of the country’s four major carriers, Vodafone, SingTel’s Optus and TPG Telecom Ltd, but was blocked in 2012 from providing broadband equipment.

Turnbull said the government was still mulling Huawei’s role in the country’s nascent 5G network.

“We’ll continue to consider that and get the best advice on that from our national security agencies,” he told reporters in Canberra. ($1 = 1.3535 Australian dollars) (Reporting by Colin Packham and Tom Westbrook in SYDNEY Additional reporting by Christian Shepherd in BEIJING Editing by Darren Schuettler)

[Philip]

A floating $10 -$15B flag waving sea monster in peacetime which would have an exciting but short life in wartime! Give me the unsinkable carrier anytime.I draw your attention to Malta which like the A&N islands was unsinkable during WW2 and from where Allied aircraft took a very heavy toll of Axis shipping supplying Rommel's Afrika Korps.This hugely affected his logistic chain and supply oc vitally needed eqpt. in the N.African campaign.Monty on the other hand sat tight at El Alamein, got fat with supplies of tanks, arty and ammo and when he was ready popped the cork.

Malta was also the key naval base for the Allies in the Meditt. from where British ships and subs could operate from, creating havoc with Italian and German shipping.

The A & N islands , plus Lakshadweep are not mobile flat tops which can sail anywhere in the IOR admittedly, but this drawback can in some serious
measure be overcome as a base for LRMP aircraft and naval strike aircraft for offence and defence, plus accommodate a substantial amphibious force for amphib. ops. and house repair facilities for major wsrships and subs apart from other base facilities supporting the air components of the IAF and IN.

Lastly, the islands can serve as a forward base for an arsenal of missile batteries for strat. and tactical purposes, mobile units which can be well hidden and camouflaged.Large salvoes can be hidden and fired far more than can be fitted aboard any warship .

[Cain Marko]

^ahem... May I again make my case for the fast bomber... It's not like the russkis didn't do any flag waving during the cold war. Even today, a nice fly past by a couple of backfires is often worthy of Western attention. If really needed, it can always be painted in the tri color like the mki to really do some flag waving.

[Pratyush]

So the wise guys advocating "unsinkable" even know what are the drawbacks of a base whose location is known to all.

When you are tied to a particular location. It is just a matter of time an enemy knocks it out.

Plus the tyranny of distance and the initiative an enemy has attacking the base.

Built a reasonable aircraft carrier fleet with modern aircraft with competent escorts.

The job of your enemy is complicated many fold.

But who is going to teach the proponents of unsinkable this and unsinkable that.

Soviet union was an unsinkable aircraft carrier. And yet they were building a fleet of sinkable aircraft carrier towards the end of cold war.

Can anyone please look into the reasons for it. Please go beyond the shallow arguments of waiving the national flag.

To the fan's of Soviet sub building. I want you to learn about the cost operations for one Oscar class submarine. That is cabaple of operations against US aircraft carrier.

Please understand that it was and will remain a single purpose and single use weapon. and then put the cost in context.

[Singha]

Uh uh what is the use of okinawa or guam when 10 cvbg ?

Apart from forward bases for ships they can bring to bear far far more heavy air assets and sortie rates and snoopy planes extend their range in peace

And no enemy submarine can sink them

Nothing can replace them. Once built far cheaper to operate than a fleet

[Pratyush]

But that only works when you have 10 cvbg. Take those 10 cvbg out of the equation. Guam is just a big fat juicy meal.

[Singha]

Guam has formidable radar , and air abm defences
Its plan cvbg who should be running scared of guam not vice versa

Its a juicy meal like a great white is a juicy meal
Try kar ke dekh lo how much you can digest

[Pratyush]

Armchair warriors always look at defensive capacity and then oh defences are impregnable.

But to quote someone from game of thrones. "Give me 10 good men and I will impregnte the bitch."

A successful defence will end in a draw. All the time. With the initiative being with the enemy.

But when you couple such defence with strong and mobile offensive capacity. You give your enemy a problem.

The same problem IJN faced in midway. Resulting in the death of the fast carrier wing.

Aircraft carrier has a long life ahead of it and will continue to have a life till such time someone does not come up with a weapon that is so cheap and efficient that it totally destroyes the economies of war.

To me the PRC ballistic missiles are not those weapons. Not in the Indian context not in the context of any other carrier power.

[Cain Marko]

Uhh, we are talking about Indian Navy here, which is struggling to afford 24 helos and folks be talking mighty big super carriers, wah wah. Hawa mein teerbaji is all good but as the man said, show me the money. Ya, cvbgs are great to prosecute war when you have 10 big ones. As of now nobody can afford that except the one.

Far better to keep three Vikrant class for purposes outlined in that article and back it up with long ranged bombers, and meat and potatoes stuff like mpaas, subs, robust surface assets. A missile cruiser or two would also add to the diversity in assets.

In the case of India, large cvbgs are simply unaffordable, too few and too small, if needed to take the war to the Chinese. If the latter is the purpose then get the US to supply these at friendship prices. If the purpose is to blockade Karachi and impress IOR neighbors, 3 Vikrant class should be more than enough.

[Philip]

To blockade Pak, 2 would be fine.In fact just one plus a couple of wolfpacks could do the biz.Saturation BMos missile attacks from 500km out by our warships too would give the PN a v.exciting and fleetingife.

[Pratyush]

You don't need carrier to blockade Karachi. Opv and submarine with land-based aircraft.

[Singha]

Marko ji hear hear

I nevet said anything about islands being a defensive asset
Guam is packed with heavy bombers , awacs and refuelers for offensive action and so will andaman bases in due time

Its also very well defended from air attacks more so than any fleet as even raptors can join the fight... a puny cvbg generating 100 fighter sorties a day after few days will need to resupply and refuel with transport ships picked apart by a peer enemy

Laccadive is too small. We need a martime base and airport either in mauritius or seychelles

And we need backfires and blackjacks

[Cain Marko]

^ knew that and agreed in Toto Saar.. There are other ways to go about it as you suggest.

Comrade Philip makes a good point here about the unsinkable carrier and I hope more is being done to that end by the powers that be. Esp. Considering the proximity of AN islands to Malacca. I'd like to see a permanent sqd of mki with bmos parked there along with an s400 type.

[uddu]

[Rakesh]

Pressure for IAC-2 to complete design and begin construction. Who benefits?

India has a grand maritime strategy, but the naval tools are missing
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/07/ ... t.html?m=1

While inadequate capital allocations affect all warship acquisitions, the drag is most apparent in the navy’s flagship project to design and develop IAC-2, which will reportedly be named INS Vishal. The first indigenous carrier, INS Vikrant, which is being constructed in Cochin Shipyard, is expected to be commissioned in 2021. IAC-2 should have begun construction, but has not even managed to get an “in principle” approval from the defence ministry, which seems paralysed by the fratricidal contest between the army, air force and navy for the same depleted budget.

While the ministry dithers over sanctioning IAC-2, a US-India joint working group (JWG), set up in January 2015, is working with the US navy and warship industry -- acknowledged as the gold standard in aircraft carrier operations. Consequently, the navy is embracing American design and operating philosophies, such as catapult launch of aircraft. The Pentagon has agreed to provide India with EMALS – the “electro-magnetic rail gun aircraft launch system” – a system so advanced that only the latest US Navy carrier has it. The remaining US carriers still launch aircraft using the conventional “steam catapult”.

Meanwhile navy sources say the Pentagon has agreed to reserve vacancies for Indian aircraft carrier designers in US Navy design courses. Indian navy officers describe as “an eye opener”, their exposure to US Navy operating procedures. They are learning from their US counterparts new methodologies for final operational trials on new carriers, which will cut down time for operationalising the Vikrant and Vishal.

[kit]

More carriers = less submarines .
This looks like the episode of Indian Army going without new artillery guns for nearly a decade

[Prasad]

Carriers = Fighter acquisition. JSF vs Rafale there. Don't even need to connect the dots there.

[Rahul M]

time for a new thread people.